Mass. Retools Ratings System In Bid to Jibe With ESEA

With its recent unveiling of new performance ratings of schools and
districts, Massachusetts marked the launch of an effort to merge its
home-grown accountability system with the requirements of the federal
"No Child Left Behind" Act of 2001.

But the new ratings are causing some confusion, in part because
schools that were praised by the state education department two years
ago were placed on its watch list this year for failing to meet their
targets for "adequate yearly progress."

All states are scrambling to make adjustments similar to those in
Massachusetts, as they craft mechanisms to chart the annual progress of
their schools toward the federal goal of having all students achieve
proficiency in English/language arts and mathematics by 2014.

In Massachusetts' case, that has meant putting to new use the
Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System tests, which the state
designed, in part, to be a hurdle that 10th graders must pass to
graduate, beginning with the class of 2003.

"We had a classification system that relied on absolute performance,
and now it has the overlay of a federal system that includes a
performance factor as well as its expectation for yearly improvement,"
said Paul Reville, the director of the Pew Forum on Standards-Based
Reform, located at Harvard University's graduate school of education.
The two systems do not dovetail easily, he said.

Under the Bay State's new rating system, schools and districts
receive separate ratings for absolute performance and for progress. At
the unveiling of the so- called "Cycle II" school and district ratings
on Nov. 25, state officials lauded the gains made on the MCAS in
English/language arts—and slight gains in mathematics—over
the past two years.

"What we are seeing now is the efforts of our teachers,
administrators, parents, and students from all areas paying off,"
Commissioner of Education David P. Driscoll said.

The ratings are based on students' MCAS scores for grades 4, 7, 8,
and 10 in English/language arts and math for 2001 and 2002. Of the
1,630 schools that received performance ratings—which ranged from
"critically low" to "very high"—59 percent rated "high" or "very
high" in English, and 25 percent rated "high" or "very high" in
math.

Three-quarters of the schools also received improvement ratings,
which compare their MCAS results in 2001 and 2002 with their
performance in 1999 and 2000. The other schools were considered too new
or small to produce improvement ratings.

Overall, of the 1,326 schools that received improvement ratings in
English, 83 percent were at or above their targets for improvement; of
the 1,265 schools that were rated in math, 55 percent were at or above
their targets.

Districts also are subject to the state ratings. Of the 320 rated
districts, 94 percent were at or above their targets in English, and 76
percent were at or above their targets in math.

Ratings Confusion

Under the new ratings, 194 schools are on the state's watch list, of
which 95 are on the list for the second time. The original watch list,
published in 2000, had 259 schools.

Up to a dozen more schools could yet be added to the new list from a
batch of 100 schools whose test data are still under review, officials
said.

Being on the watch, or "schools in need of improvement," list earns
a school extra scrutiny and extra resources from the state,
and—if the school stays on the list for two cycles of two years
each—the possibility of a state takeover.

But the watch list has "anomalies," said Ellen Guiney, the executive
director of the Boston Plan for Excellence, an education foundation
that seeks to help the Boston public schools improve literacy
instruction.

"There are schools that improved a great deal and are still on that
list," she said. "And there are schools that failed to make
improvements that are not on the list."

Two years ago, Ms. Guiney noted, Boston's Otis Elementary School was
lauded by the state education department because 84 percent of its
students had passed the MCAS, although 68 percent of its test- takers
were English-language learners.

"It's now on the [watch] list," she said. The reason, she explained,
is not that the school's MCAS scores didn't improve—they
did—but that it missed its target for annual yearly progress, or
AYP, to be on track to meet the federal deadline in 2014.

Vol. 22, Issue 15, Page 5

Published in Print: December 11, 2002, as Mass. Retools Ratings System In Bid to Jibe With ESEA

Notice: We recently upgraded our comments. (Learn more here.) If you are logged in as a subscriber or registered user and already have a Display Name on edweek.org, you can post comments. If you do not already have a Display Name, please create one here.

Ground Rules for Posting
We encourage lively debate, but please be respectful of others. Profanity and personal attacks are prohibited. By commenting, you are agreeing to abide by our user agreement.
All comments are public.